4 ms·

16% of Corp Board Members Say Racial and Gender Diversity Has No Benefit at All

19 points by lnguyen 9y ago

apk-d 9y ago
Given how aggressively the progressive agenda is pushed (especially against corporate circles), I'm not surprised at all that some people take a contrarian position, regardless of reality. By the way, "84% of corporate board members agree with us" is a surprisingly good score, and it's weird they're portraying it in a bad light.
disagreeseenit 9y ago
This is obviously true and relevant but will get: 1: Few social media points, because the people in charge of internet media points have an agenda the deceive the public precisely and exactly to believe the opposite of this. 2. Anyone agreeing with the basic premises of this artcile - and the rest of the work even in the same ball park - it almost or is illegal because of racist/sexist/no inclusive of aboriginie etc.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  The article itself has an agenda, telling me how I should feel about the facts: > What’s perhaps just as concerning is how directors split at a more fundamental level, with large swaths of respondents—33% and 24%, respectively—saying socioeconomic diversity and racial diversity are “not at all important” to fostering diversity of thought in the boardroom.
yuhong 9y ago
The most important problem with anti-discrimination laws is it is often difficult to prove claims in lawsuits etc. The other problem is that it promotes thinking like 25% of workers has to be woman, which was probably fine for manual labor jobs but not for other kinds. I suggested a compromise limiting the kinds of jobs in which these laws apply.
- apk-d 9y ago
  > 25% of workers has to be woman, which was probably fine for manual labor jobs How is forcing a gender ratio for manual jobs fine? I mean OK, I kind of want to see the chaos and panic as a result of a law that would require 25% of sewer workers/trash collectors to be women (currently 1% or less), but I'm evil like that.
  - yuhong 9y ago
    They are jobs that are easily measurable and are similar for every worker, which made it less bad. Note that I am talking about even thinking in terms of ratios that are for example centrally monitored by HR, not just forcing it.
peoplewindow 9y ago
I was curious about the claim that companies with women on the board are more likely to experience strong financial performance. Nobody has presented a clear explanation of how this mechanism would work: "women have unique insights" is about as precise as it gets, but I have yet to see a concrete example of that be presented myself. So I followed the links and downloaded the research paper. I noticed a few things about it. Firstly, it is research that comes from an investment advisory firm of some sort (MSCI ESG Research). It is not academic research, and the firm is not free of bias: they claim to be committed to diversity on their website. They clearly start with conclusions they'd like to reach. Did that affect their rigour? The paper doesn't actually look at all companies with women on the board. It actually examines companies that the researchers classify as having "strong female leadership". Strong female leadership is defined as follows: - 3 or more women on the board - Or one woman on the board but a female CEO - Or its percentage of women on the board is above the country average - And has not "been implicated in discrimination allegations in the past three years, as captured by our proprietary controversies database". The first three seem OK, although the phrasing is ambiguous - strong female leadership would usually be interpreted as meaning decisiveness by female leaders, not the mere presence of them. The final item is problematic. If companies that have a lot of women on the board were in fact yielding worse financial performance due to being distracted with lots of bogus discrimination lawsuits then this study simply wouldn't show it at all, as it arbitrarily drops 53 data points from its sample. The list of companies dropped and included is not available, so the study is not reproducible. I wondered if they'd engaged in any other dubious data analysis practices. The most apparent one is that they're measuring financial performance but don't control for other variables that could affect it. The report notes that many countries included in their analysis have mandatory quotas for women in the boardroom. If those countries experienced slightly better stock market performance in general, for reasons unrelated to gender diversity, then that would yield a spurious result of "more women = better performance". In fact without controlling for this it would appear that what they're really doing is comparing economic performance of different countries, as those countries are all mandated to have "strong female leadership" by law. In fairness, the paper does note that they find no causal link and can't explain their own results. Unfortunately, being advocacy and not academic research, most of the paper is devoted to promoting the cause of women on corporate boards anyway. Overall the few minutes I spent on researching this does not further endear me to feminist views. The casual repetition of a dubious claim that's literally a case of "correlation is not causation", based on cherry picked data to boot, simply to attack men who sit on boards - this does not sit well. edit: also note that the claim about bribery comes from the same source and paper
beingmyself2 9y ago
How many of the remaining 84% just want to avoid becoming a social pariah? The number of times I personally have bleated the party line just to avoid having a "comply or be fired" talk with HR continues to increase in frequency.

19 points by lnguyen 9y ago

Given how aggressively the progressive agenda is pushed (especially against corporate circles), I'm not surprised at all that some people take a contrarian position, regardless of reality. By the way, "84% of corporate board members agree with us" is a surprisingly good score, and it's weird they're portraying it in a bad light.

disagreeseenit 9y ago

This is obviously true and relevant but will get: 1: Few social media points, because the people in charge of internet media points have an agenda the deceive the public precisely and exactly to believe the opposite of this. 2. Anyone agreeing with the basic premises of this artcile - and the rest of the work even in the same ball park - it almost or is illegal because of racist/sexist/no inclusive of aboriginie etc.

PeachPlum 9y ago
The article itself has an agenda, telling me how I should feel about the facts: > What’s perhaps just as concerning is how directors split at a more fundamental level, with large swaths of respondents—33% and 24%, respectively—saying socioeconomic diversity and racial diversity are “not at all important” to fostering diversity of thought in the boardroom.

yuhong 9y ago

The most important problem with anti-discrimination laws is it is often difficult to prove claims in lawsuits etc. The other problem is that it promotes thinking like 25% of workers has to be woman, which was probably fine for manual labor jobs but not for other kinds. I suggested a compromise limiting the kinds of jobs in which these laws apply.

apk-d 9y ago
> 25% of workers has to be woman, which was probably fine for manual labor jobs How is forcing a gender ratio for manual jobs fine? I mean OK, I kind of want to see the chaos and panic as a result of a law that would require 25% of sewer workers/trash collectors to be women (currently 1% or less), but I'm evil like that.
- yuhong 9y ago
  They are jobs that are easily measurable and are similar for every worker, which made it less bad. Note that I am talking about even thinking in terms of ratios that are for example centrally monitored by HR, not just forcing it.

peoplewindow 9y ago

I was curious about the claim that companies with women on the board are more likely to experience strong financial performance. Nobody has presented a clear explanation of how this mechanism would work: "women have unique insights" is about as precise as it gets, but I have yet to see a concrete example of that be presented myself. So I followed the links and downloaded the research paper. I noticed a few things about it. Firstly, it is research that comes from an investment advisory firm of some sort (MSCI ESG Research). It is not academic research, and the firm is not free of bias: they claim to be committed to diversity on their website. They clearly start with conclusions they'd like to reach. Did that affect their rigour? The paper doesn't actually look at all companies with women on the board. It actually examines companies that the researchers classify as having "strong female leadership". Strong female leadership is defined as follows: - 3 or more women on the board - Or one woman on the board but a female CEO - Or its percentage of women on the board is above the country average - And has not "been implicated in discrimination allegations in the past three years, as captured by our proprietary controversies database". The first three seem OK, although the phrasing is ambiguous - strong female leadership would usually be interpreted as meaning decisiveness by female leaders, not the mere presence of them. The final item is problematic. If companies that have a lot of women on the board were in fact yielding worse financial performance due to being distracted with lots of bogus discrimination lawsuits then this study simply wouldn't show it at all, as it arbitrarily drops 53 data points from its sample. The list of companies dropped and included is not available, so the study is not reproducible. I wondered if they'd engaged in any other dubious data analysis practices. The most apparent one is that they're measuring financial performance but don't control for other variables that could affect it. The report notes that many countries included in their analysis have mandatory quotas for women in the boardroom. If those countries experienced slightly better stock market performance in general, for reasons unrelated to gender diversity, then that would yield a spurious result of "more women = better performance". In fact without controlling for this it would appear that what they're really doing is comparing economic performance of different countries, as those countries are all mandated to have "strong female leadership" by law. In fairness, the paper does note that they find no causal link and can't explain their own results. Unfortunately, being advocacy and not academic research, most of the paper is devoted to promoting the cause of women on corporate boards anyway. Overall the few minutes I spent on researching this does not further endear me to feminist views. The casual repetition of a dubious claim that's literally a case of "correlation is not causation", based on cherry picked data to boot, simply to attack men who sit on boards - this does not sit well. edit: also note that the claim about bribery comes from the same source and paper

beingmyself2 9y ago

How many of the remaining 84% just want to avoid becoming a social pariah? The number of times I personally have bleated the party line just to avoid having a "comply or be fired" talk with HR continues to increase in frequency.